Aim120 can be trashed with a barrel roll and chaff headon

[NytHawk]

12 hours ago, MA_VMF said:

The range of the fuse is calculated based on the mass of the warhead

Do you mind elaborating on what each component of this equation refers to? Especially knowing at least a part of it appears to be written in Russian, which many of us don't speak. 

Also in an assumption that this equation is relevant to the effective range of a warhead against specific aircraft, I personally don't see how would this educate us about how proximity fuses are programmed on specific missiles? 

Edited January 12 by NytHawk

[Chizh]

12 часов назад, Hobel сказал:

But with all due respect, it's no longer about maneuverability. Маэстро has already explained to us why the missile behaves the way it does, and that's fine.

I'm also not talking about maneuverability, but about the capabilities of the missile control system.

12 часов назад, Hobel сказал:

Hence the question about the PF to compensate for this weakness.
The Aim120 can be rolled out head-on every time even though the missile is 2-3M fast at the moment of passing.
in addition, there are some pilot reports who were hit by Aim120 and sometimes could only land with minor damage an indication that the PF range was greater hence the minor damage? in DCS it is 99% of the cases always a total destruction of the aircraft

Are there any official references on the range of the AIM-120 proximity fuse?

[Xhonas]

30 minutes ago, Chizh said:

I'm also not talking about maneuverability, but about the capabilities of the missile control system.

Are there any official references on the range of the AIM-120 proximity fuse?

Question: as many things in DCS are based on guesswork, why would you need this data to tweak the missile to solve this problem? the DCS Aim-120 perfromance is purely based on speculation (as per your white paper), so, why the approach to the PF needs to be so different? Sure, it would be very nice to have this data to model it more accurately, but if the data is not present, why can't you do an educated guess, just like everything else coded in this missile? 

[MA_VMF]

1 час назад, NytHawk сказал:

Do you mind elaborating on what each component of this equation refers to? Especially knowing at least a part of it appears to be written in Russian, which many of us don't speak. 

Also in an assumption that this equation is relevant to the effective range of a warhead against specific aircraft, I personally don't see how would this educate us about how proximity fuses are programmed on specific missiles? 

R0 is a parameter of the conditional defeat law.

Kr-the conditional component of the dimensions of the goal. F-15 Kr=1.22

mбч-mass of the warhead

And this formula for the probability of hitting a target

 

null

-middle deviation of the probable dispersion

Edited January 12 by MA_VMF

[Chizh]

32 минуты назад, Xhonas сказал:

Question: as many things in DCS are based on guesswork, why would you need this data to tweak the missile to solve this problem? the DCS Aim-120 perfromance is purely based on speculation (as per your white paper), so, why the approach to the PF needs to be so different? Sure, it would be very nice to have this data to model it more accurately, but if the data is not present, why can't you do an educated guess, just like everything else coded in this missile? 

This is not true. Over two decades, we have collected quite a large amount of information on this missile. Starting from the size and weight, ending with seeker operating parameters. We conducted aerodynamic studies of the missile body, which allowed us to create a flight dynamics model. But, unfortunately, there is no precise information on the fuse.

[speed-of-heat]

1 hour ago, MA_VMF said:

R0 is a parameter of the conditional defeat law.

Kr-the conditional component of the dimensions of the goal. F-15 Kr=1.22

mбч-mass of the warhead

And this formula for the probability of hitting a target

 

null

-middle deviation of the probable dispersion

mass in Kilos or pounds ?

 

Edited January 12 by speed-of-heat

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Chizh:

Are there any official references on the range of the AIM-120 proximity fuse?

A Korea paper where the PK and its effect on different ranges is investigated.

Original:

Development of a Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Program for the Lethality Evaluation (5)-1.pdf

English translation:

Technical Paper-2.pdf

 

okopanja has uploaded several reports in the Mig29 forum where pilots have survived  an Aim120 hit and were able to land with some minor damage, possibly a hint that it is not always 9m but a little more PF range so that the damage is less.
DCS it is always 99% dead and complete destruction of the aircraft

Mig 29 Forum
 

159 (11-7) in the p-825 manual (public)

NAVAL AIR TRAINING.pdf   (all other missiles have the same PF and kill radius as in DCS only exception Aim120)

I don't know what flying object the kill radius stands for, jet maybe drone in any case, the system seems to recognize something at 15m and also kill it? I don't know but if the kill radius of 15m is there wouldn't it be a plausible assumption to set it to 15 fuse? why keep PF artificially smaller than the kill radius for whatever?
 

 

@Default774 has also tested 15m PF and it would drastically limit the bug or explioit discussed here, the roll would still be an effective maneuver, the difference would be that an Aim-120 with enormous energy would no longer be so easy to defending, as I said currently it is very easy to replicate with 2-3m.

 

There is an irl shot where the Aim-120 explodes on a very small object if you go through the video pixel by pixel you get to ~9m.
It is a drone the RCS or the reflections were sufficient from this small object that the missile exploded at 9m, a jet like a F16 or Su27 are much larger and therefore much easier to detect by the TTD in old SA-2 documents(I can send you if you want) this aspect is discussed where the reflections have an influence on the PF fuse.
also that generally Searchhead and TTD work together for a good PF solution.

 

 

Zitat

I'm also not talking about maneuverability, but about the capabilities of the missile control system.

Why not Zero or negative closure == detonate?

and why should a modern Aim120 have worse TTD than a 27R ER or other old missile with more PF range?

Edited January 12 by Hobel

[Xhonas]

46 minutes ago, Chizh said:

This is not true. Over two decades, we have collected quite a large amount of information on this missile. Starting from the size and weight, ending with seeker operating parameters. We conducted aerodynamic studies of the missile body, which allowed us to create a flight dynamics model. But, unfortunately, there is no precise information on the fuse.

Still, you had to use data from other missiles to estimate a lot of important parameters, like propellant, motor burn, specific impulse.. its nowhere near 100% accurate. I'm not criticizing your model, its just that the aim-120 is a classified missile and there is never going to be accurate data on it, only estimations and guesses. 

So, if you don't have precise information on the PF, what difference it makes if you change it to the same values that the SD-10 is using (for example)? its not going to be any more or any less accurate...

Edited January 12 by Xhonas

[MA_VMF]

11 минут назад, speed-of-heat сказал:

mass in Kilos or pounds ?

 

Kilos

[Chizh]

9 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

Still, you had to use data from other missiles to estimate a lot of important parameters, like propellant, motor burn, specific impulse.. its nowhere near 100% accurate. I'm not criticizing your model, its just that the aim-120 is a classified missile and there is never going to be accurate data on it, only estimations and guesses. 

No. We know the exact mass of the fuel, the specific impulse and the masses of other missile elements.

9 минут назад, Xhonas сказал:

So, if you don't have precise information on the PF, what difference it makes if you change it to the same values that the SD-10 is using? its not going to be any more or any less accurate...

Yes, I am inclined to think that the range of the proximity fuse should be increased.

[Default774]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

A Korea paper where the PK and its effect on different ranges is investigated.

Original:

Development of a Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Program for the Lethality Evaluation (5)-1.pdf 496.38 kB · 4 downloads

English translation:

Technical Paper-2.pdf 429.57 kB · 6 downloads

 

okopanja has uploaded several reports in the Mig29 forum where pilots have survived  an Aim120 hit and were able to land with some minor damage, possibly a hint that it is not always 9m but a little more PF range so that the damage is less.
DCS it is always 99% dead and complete destruction of the aircraft

Mig 29 Forum
 

159 (11-7) in the p-825 manual (public)

NAVAL AIR TRAINING.pdf   (all other missiles have the same PF and kill radius as in DCS only exception Aim120)

I don't know what flying object the kill radius stands for, jet maybe drone in any case, the system seems to recognize something at 15m and also kill it? I don't know but if the kill radius of 15m is there wouldn't it be a plausible assumption to set it to 15 fuse? why keep PF artificially smaller than the kill radius for whatever?
 

 

@Default774 has also tested 15m PF and it would drastically limit the bug or explioit discussed here, the roll would still be an effective maneuver, the difference would be that an Aim-120 with enormous energy would no longer be so easy to defending, as I said currently it is very easy to replicate with 2-3m.

 

There is an irl shot where the Aim-120 explodes on a very small object if you go through the video pixel by pixel you get to ~9m.
It is a drone the RCS or the reflections were sufficient from this small object that the missile exploded at 9m, a jet like a F16 or Su27 are much larger and therefore much easier to detect by the TTD in old SA-2 documents(I can send you if you want) this aspect is discussed where the reflections have an influence on the PF fuse.
also that generally Searchhead and TTD work together for a good PF solution.

 

 

Why not Zero or negative closure == detonate?

and why should a modern Aim120 have worse TTD than a 27R ER or other old missile with more PF range?

I agree completely. I still think a zero/negative closure == detonate solution is the right way forward, although simply increasing the proximity fuze range would work as well.

The anti-missile maneuvers mentioned by Chizh would absolutely still work, in the sense that they would increase the miss distance of the missile, perhaps, the missile may detonate at 20m instead of not detonating at all. This would add some much needed dynamics into the equation where not all missile hits are always 100% guaranteed death as they are right now, which would also help in lining up with real scenarios of AIM-120 hits where full destruction of the aircraft is not always guaranteed.

Realistic anti-missile maneuvers would still be effective, just not a binary instant death or zero damage

[Zergburger]

On 1/12/2025 at 3:06 AM, Default774 said:

I agree completely. I still think a zero/negative closure == detonate solution is the right way forward, although simply increasing the proximity fuze range would work as well.

The anti-missile maneuvers mentioned by Chizh would absolutely still work, in the sense that they would increase the miss distance of the missile, perhaps, the missile may detonate at 20m instead of not detonating at all. This would add some much needed dynamics into the equation where not all missile hits are always 100% guaranteed death as they are right now, which would also help in lining up with real scenarios of AIM-120 hits where full destruction of the aircraft is not always guaranteed.

Realistic anti-missile maneuvers would still be effective, just not a binary instant death or zero damage

EXACTLY

A 50lbs warhead exploding 60ft from you aircraft may not cause immediate violent disassembly, but it sure as <profanity> would have an effect. I am very much inclined to believe that with modern target detect devices, a generous proximity fuse setting is given for the inital tripping, and then if the range continues to measurably decrease, the detonation is held. How else would you design a missile that must engage everything from drones to large bombers with length and wingspans over 30m?

Edited January 13 by Zergburger

[NytHawk]

On 1/13/2025 at 11:01 PM, Zergburger said:

EXACTLY

A 50lbs warhead exploding 60ft from you aircraft may not cause immediate violent disassembly, but it sure as <profanity> would have an effect. I am very much inclined to believe that with modern target detect devices, a generous proximity fuse setting is given for the inital tripping, and then if the range continues to measurably decrease, the detonation is held. How else would you design a missile that must engage everything from drones to large bombers with length and wingspans over 30m?

After some research, it appears the VT fuze (developed in WW2) overcame this issue as it triggered once the doppler shift of the received waves dropped below a certain threshold, and when the amplitude of the returning waves went above a threshold. As you and Default have inferred to before, this would be the optimal way to consistently destroy, or heavily damage aircraft,
If this technology existed back in the 1940s, I'd say its almost certain it has been implemented on missiles like the AMRAAM.

 

Edited January 14 by NytHawk

[Chizh]

With missiles it's a little different. The fuse counts the impulses and generates a set detonation delay depending on the type of target.

Doppler won't work in a number of situations. Imagine a missile flying under the plane's flat belly. Doppler shift will only work when the missile flies to the tail. But then it will be too late for detonate.

Or imagine that a missile flies under the wing.

[NytHawk]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Doppler won't work in a number of situations. Imagine a missile flying under the plane's flat belly. Doppler shift will only work when the missile flies to the tail. But then it will be too late for detonate.

Or imagine that a missile flies under the wing.

I am aware of the limitations in a doppler-only proximity fusing system, that's why it would be useful to have a fixed range around the aircraft in which the missile will always detonate.
Obviously we don't know what this minimum range is for the AMRAAM, but frankly it doesn't matter in terms of gameplay knowing that its current detonation radius almost always results in an instant kill.

Edited January 14 by NytHawk

[Hobel]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Chizh:

With missiles it's a little different. The fuse counts the impulses and generates a set detonation delay depending on the type of target.

Doppler won't work in a number of situations. Imagine a missile flying under the plane's flat belly. Doppler shift will only work when the missile flies to the tail. But then it will be too late for detonate.

Or imagine that a missile flies under the wing.

Why not both?

In this case, the TDD triggers at 15m because it registers an object.

The other cases remain dynamic if zero/negative closure can be registered.

Edited January 15 by Hobel

[Chizh]

16 минут назад, Hobel сказал:

Why not both?

In this case, the TTD triggers at 15m because it registers an object.

The other cases remain dynamic if zero/negative closure can be registered.

Why would we do something that is not in a real missile?

Where did the information about Doppler come from?

[Muchocracker]

5 hours ago, Chizh said:

Why would we do something that is not in a real missile?

Where did the information about Doppler come from?

What is ED's information. Because there is zero documentation of the amraam's TDD on the internet. I can't even find out what designation it has

[Hobel]

today's update, the proximity fuse of the AIM-120 is now 15m

[Stackhouse]

20 minutes ago, Hobel said:

today's update, the proximity fuse of the AIM-120 is now 15m

What was the value before?

[Archer.xd]

1 minute ago, Stackhouse said:

What was the value before?

9m

[speed-of-heat]

25 minutes ago, Hobel said:

today's update, the proximity fuse of the AIM-120 is now 15m

Excellent, lets see... 

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb speed-of-heat:

Excellent, lets see... 

For my taste, it has become much better, especially Missile with a lot of energy is a real threat. At least in my tests. 

Is it still possible? Yes it is, but the crucial point in my opinion is that the risk is now far too high to use the exploit and that you are now more likely to be forced to Turn out. Before it was 95% or so  to dodge a missile with 2-3M. 

But I'm curious to see what your results are.

 

 

Edited January 20 by Hobel

[Red_Camarada]

from all tracks posted here and replayed the only one that resulted in a survivable barrel roll is this one. seems better than before.

AOA_Roll.trk

[LizardKingYB]

Nice news. Let's see how Migs 23 defending it now.